If given the power to change a single industry issue, addressing the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 is what wealth managers said they would do, along with fixing regulatory burdens. Meanwhile, tariffs are a worry for some.

Alright financial advisors, with only a single day to go before the election, let’s talk “single-issue” politics. And to be even more specific, let’s make that solitary issue your very own practice.

That’s right, the place where you hang your hat each and every day.

Stepping back, there are clearly a lot of issues to consider when casting your vote tomorrow, whether it be for president, senator, congressmember, street sweeper, or dog catcher. For whichever candidate or whatever proposition you find on your ballot, there are a plethora of things to talk, think, and vote about.

No debate there.

Nevertheless, if there was a single issue to be decided by tomorrow’s election that most concerns your personal wealth management business, what would it be? And furthermore, if you had the public backing and the resulting power to address that particular question, how would you decide it?

Robert Pearl, co-founder and wealth advisor at G&P Financial, for instance, would move to standardize and simplify a number of regulations in the wealth management industry if given the authority, notably marketing rules, fiduciary standards, and continuing education rules.

“Whether you sell [indexed universal life policies] online on TikTok, are a wirehouse advisor, or a fee-only advisor at an RIA, you should be held nationally to the same basic standards,” Pearl said. “We as industry professionals understand that each of these examples fall under different regulations and different government bodies, but the public does not, no matter how much disclosure is provided.”   

Meanwhile, Chris Brown, private wealth advisor and managing director at Kingswood US, said hands down the biggest issue for him and his clients is taxes. Specifically, he is concerned about the tax impact surrounding the QOZ  (Qualified Opportunity Zone) legislation and 1031 exchanges. And if given the power, Brown would renew the QOZ legislation and extend it to a later date, while simultaneously keeping 1031 exchanges as part of the tax code.

“The reason they've been discussed is due to the revenue that could be brought to the federal government on the capital gain side if the option ceases to exist,” Brown said. “Tax revenue can be raised from other sources. More importantly, the federal government can and should do all that can be done to reduce the need.”

“When you dig deep, one can see we have many programs being funded that benefit nearly no one,” he said.

Along similar lines, Drew Gerling, wealth advisor at Thrivent Financial, said he believes tax rates are the single issue that need sorting out. In his view, clients with large tax-deferred investments are staring down a substantial increase in taxes if the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 is allowed to sunset, thereby making long-term tax planning and reduction challenging for advisors like himself.

“Give us a policy position that the new administration intends to pursue with Congress over the next year. Or, if there is no new tax policy, can we assume the law will be allowed to sunset at the end of next year and revert back to 2017 brackets?” Gerling asked, adding that “the earlier this happens, the more beneficial for our clients.”

Clarity on the TCJA would also be the pressing problem for Alex Austin, wealth manager at Savvy Advisors, if he had to narrow the election down to a single, personal issue.

“The TCJA eliminated personal exemptions, which could return if the law reverts, potentially increasing taxable income,” Austin said. “Another significant impact is the State and Local Tax (SALT) Deduction. Under current law, the $10,000 SALT deduction cap is set to expire, which will affect taxpayers in high-tax states who previously deducted these expenses.”

For businesses, the TCJA reduced the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. If this rate increases again, businesses may face higher taxes, impacting profitability and investment decisions, Austin said.

Forget about a chicken in every pot. What Austin wants is “a sensible extension of the TCJA that balances the need for continued economic growth while addressing budget deficits.”

Heather Welsh, senior vice president at Sequoia Financial Group, is also focused on the scheduled sunsetting of the TCJA. If the expiration occurs, it will change the income and estate tax landscape for many Americans through over 20 expiring provisions, Welsh said.

“This will require reevaluating which planning techniques could be a fit for each client, including some options that have been less used for several years under the current law,” Welsh said. “To solve this issue, I would evaluate the impact on the national deficit of extending the expiring provisions to varying degrees. This would require bipartisan collaboration.”

Moving on, Tom Graff, chief investment officer at Facet, sees another type of tax as his single issue: tariffs.

“A big ramp up in tariffs could have far-reaching implications, including higher inflation, higher interest rates and a stronger dollar,” Graff said. “That being said, there are so many variables here that making any specific trade is difficult. It might be that Harris wins and tariffs aren't a big issue. It might be that Trump wins, but the tariffs wind up more targeted and thus don't have a large impact.”

Graff won’t offer a solution for the tariff question, even given the hypothetical power to do so. Still, he has no plans to bet one way or another on the divisive issue.

“We don't like making binary bets, so we've got portfolios positioned to weather higher tariffs by utilizing positions that could also benefit from other scenarios. Among those are being underweight emerging markets and underweight interest rate risk within bonds,” Graff said.

‍